MITIGATION TOOLBOX. Compiled by: NWCC Mitigation Subgroup & Jennie Rectenwald, Consultant. First published as a living document in May 2007.

Transcription

1 MITIGATION TOOLBOX Compiled by: NWCC Mitigation Subgroup & Jennie Rectenwald, Consultant First published as a living document in May 2007.

2 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary. 1 II. Introduction III. Methods... 4 IV. A Review of Existing Policies and Guidelines Summary.. 6 V. Annotated Bibliography VI. Case Studies 1. Relationships between Bats and Wind Turbines in Pennsylvania and West Virginia: An Assessment of Bat Fatality Search Protocols, Patterns of Fatality, and Behavioral Interactions with Wind Turbines, Arnett et al a. Comparison of Avian Responses to UV-Light-Reflective Paint on Wind Turbines, Young et al b. Minimization of Motion Smear: Reducing Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines, Hodos Behavioral and Environmental Correlates of Soaring-Bird Mortality at On-Shore Wind Turbines, Barrios and Rodriguez a. Mitigation of Bird Collisions with Transmission Lines through Groundwire Marking, Alonso et al b. Rate of Bird Collision with Power Lines: Effects of Conductor-Marking and Static Wire-Marking, Janss and Ferrar Riparian Songbird Abundance a Decade after Cattle Removal on Hart Mountain And Sheldon National Wildlife Refuges, Earnst et al Effects of Colony Relocation on Diet and Productivity of Caspian Terns, Roby et al Future Case Studies VII. Summary of Existing Policies and Guidelines and Related Research Studies VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations IX. Appendixes a. Appendix A: Comparison of Policies/Guidelines Pertaining to Wind Development and Wildlife Mitigation Efforts b. Appendix B: Wind Development Mitigation Studies Outline i

3 c. Appendix C: Habitat Mitigation Studies Outline d. Appendix D: Personal Interview Contacts and Responses e. Appendix E: Personal Interview Questions f. Appendix F: Economic Analysis ii

4 Executive Summary Human disturbances to the landscape have often led to increased fatality rates for wildlife. Mitigation techniques have been applied in an effort to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects of human disturbance. This mitigation toolbox was created to provide direction for future wind development projects by presenting an assortment of mitigation measures that can be used to minimize or eliminate the negative impacts to wildlife that result from the design, construction, and operation of wind farms. However, there are relatively few instances where research has been done to validate whether mitigation strategies have reduced impacts as expected, specifically in relation to wind development. The following mitigation toolbox is a compilation of mitigation policies, guidelines, and research that are either directly or indirectly applicable to the wind industry. The information in this toolbox was obtained through Internet, library, and database searches; literature reviews; and interviews of experts in the field. Although there is considerable research on mitigation, and there are many tools that might be applied in the context of wind power, few scientifically proven mitigation strategies are currently available to the wind industry. Numerous mitigation strategies are proving to be successful in certain situations in the field, however, and a significant amount of promising research is currently underway that could result in new techniques. Intended to improve current and future mitigation efforts, this toolbox is a living document that will grow and change as new information becomes available to fill in the gaps between existing policies or guidelines and current research, as well as within the research itself. 1

5 Introduction U.S. wind development is expected to increase from about 10,000 MW in 2007 to 50,000 MW by As a result, government groups at all levels are beginning to publish wind turbine siting and mitigation policies and guidelines to minimize the effects of future wind power development on wildlife. Suggested mitigation techniques range from general strategies (e.g., avoid locations used heavily by migrating bats and birds) to specific ones (e.g., reduce motion smear by painting the blades). The development of mitigation policies and guidelines may be an important step for minimizing the impacts of development on wildlife; however, in order to be truly successful, the suggested strategies must work. The Mitigation Toolbox The National Wind Coordinating Committee s (NWCC) Mitigation Subgroup has compiled a number of mitigation strategies in this mitigation toolbox. The toolbox provides guidance and direction for future wind development by describing various mitigation measures or tools that can be used in the decision-making process. For the purposes of the toolbox, tools are defined as effective approaches to mitigating avian and bat fatalities, as well as habitat impacts, as proven through statistically significant research. Since differences in habitat, topography, and landscape among wind facilities often make it difficult to generalize findings from one geographic region to another, the toolbox is intended to house a wide variety of tools rather than a single, all-purpose one. The toolbox is also intended to be a living document that will be periodically updated as new mitigation research and tools become available. There are relatively few instances where research has been done to validate whether mitigation strategies have reduced impacts as expected, specifically in relation to wind development. As a result, the toolbox currently contains few verifiable tools. There are, however, numerous guidance documents that have been developed for the wind industry that incorporate a wide variety of mitigation strategies. Information for Decision Makers To help guide future decision making, this toolbox provides information about existing mitigation policies and guidelines, as well as on whether strategies are based on sound scientific research. It indicates the effectiveness of various methods of avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for direct and indirect impacts on wildlife caused by wind power facilities (recognizing, however, that avoiding wildlife mortality completely is probably not possible). The toolbox contains four main sections: A comparison of existing mitigation policies and guidelines from the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia that examines policies at both local and federal levels An Annotated Bibliography that includes research on wind development mitigation, as well as general habitat mitigation studies that could be applicable to wind sites Case studies that focus on exceptional mitigation strategies and currently available tools A matrix illustrating gaps and overlaps between existing policies or guidelines and current research. The information presented here is intended to improve overall mitigation efforts by illustrating the gaps between current policies and guidelines and the research supporting them. Identifying the gaps makes it possible to tailor future research and policies to better meet goals for both wildlife and development. However, since each type of habitat is different, the results of mitigation research in one area might not apply in another area. Defining Mitigation 2

6 The NWCC Mitigation Subgroup acknowledges the definition of mitigation established by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, for all resources: The President s Council on Environmental Quality defined the term mitigation in the National Environmental Policy Act regulations to include: (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. [40 CFR Part (a-e)]. The Service supports and adopts this definition of mitigation and considers the specific elements to represent the desirable sequence of steps in the mitigation planning process. 1 The toolbox exists in the context of this definition. However the emphasis is on the tools available to mitigate impacts after developers and decision makers determine that a wind power project will be built. 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy, FR 46 (15) Jan 81, 7656, at 3

7 Methods Literature Review The literature review included a general review of existing wind siting policies, guidelines, and research pertaining to wildlife mitigation both nationally and internationally. Information was acquired by conducting Internet searches, conducting library searches, contacting ornithological societies, interviewing experts in the field (see Appendix A) via phone and , and searching numerous databases. The National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) provided an initial list of existing policies. Previous literature reviews including those of Gerson and Klute (2006), Johnson and Arnett (2004), Kerlinger (2000), Manville (2005), Spellerberg (1998), and Herbert et al. (1995) were also used (see the Annotated Bibliography). Research methods included searching the National Renewable Energy Laboratory s (NREL) Avian Literature Database, the National Wind Technology Center s EBSCO Database, the Colorado State University (CSU) EBSCO Database, the CSU JSTOR Database, the CSU Web of Science Database, Google, and Google Scholar, as well as compiling citations in relevant review articles. Most published articles were acquired from the CSU library. Research and Analysis From a significant amount of existing literature, the studies reviewed were limited to those deemed relevant, i.e., that examined the effects of specific changes to wind farm characteristics on birds or bats as well as those that examined more general habitat mitigation efforts and their effects on wildlife, which may be applicable to wind power development. Relevant studies included research that examined the effectiveness of mitigation strategies on wildlife, certain avian or bat behavior studies conducted at wind sites, studies comparing the effects of wind site alterations on wildlife, studies that examined mitigation strategies suggested in policies or guidelines, and studies mentioned by experts in the field. Research was not included that focused on avian or bat ecology, searcher efficiency rates, scavenging rates, avian or bat mortality estimates, study design, or modeling. The mitigation studies selected represented those reflecting the views of the scientific community overall but also numerous studies in which scientific opinions differed. Selections focused on recent literature (1995 and later), unless that was not possible. Some earlier literature was included if it was cited often in other studies because of its historical foundations. A number of interesting studies could not be obtained from either the NREL or CSU library, online, or in personal communications, and this was further complicated by cost and time limitations. Reviews included determining the goals of the research, its location and habitat types, the length of the study, and the general methodology used. Also researched were any conclusions, results, and management suggestions that would mitigate negative effects on wildlife. Earlier literature reviews (e.g., by Orloff in Erickson et al. 1999) were used occasionally because of time constraints and difficulty in attaining original papers. They are footnoted in the Annotated Bibliography. The studies were then divided into two matrixes. One matrix illustrates the type of review process used (peer, none, or unknown) and the other combines existing research with policies and guidelines on mitigation. Due to difficulties in ascertaining the difference between credible peer reviews and non-credible peer reviews, studies were divided into journals and reports under an umbrella section entitled Reviewed. Further analysis is required to differentiate studies into more specific categories. For the matrix comparing policy or guideline recommendations with research results, mitigation strategies were divided into nine general categories: lighting, siting, turbine type, turbine 4

8 configuration, power lines, habitat enhancement, revegetation, disturbance during construction, and operation. Individual studies were then analyzed to determine whether or not they supported the mitigation strategies suggested within any of the categories. 5

9 A Review of Existing Policies and Guidelines The following is a compilation of existing policies and guidelines pertaining to wind power development, impacts on wildlife and habitats, and mitigation efforts. Guidelines are categorized according to their scope, i.e., Local, State, Federal, International, and Other. Within each category, guidelines are alphabetized by author and then organized into design-stage, construction-stage, and operational-stage mitigation efforts, when possible. A more comprehensive summary of policies and guidelines that allows for easier comparisons is in Appendix A. The information presented here is also in the Guidelines Spreadsheet, which allows for easier comparisons of guidelines among policies. Local Policies and Guidelines Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Wind Power Guidelines Date Established: August 2003 Location: East of the Cascades Contact: Dr. Jeff Koenings, Director of WDFW, See: General Principles for Siting and Mitigation Implementation of mitigation measures is presumed to fully mitigate for habitat losses for all species; state or federal endangered or federal threatened species may require additional mitigation efforts. Developers should be encouraged to place linear facilities 1 in or adjacent to existing disturbed corridors in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and degradation. Developers should be encouraged to site wind power projects on disturbed lands. Developers should be discouraged from using or degrading high-value habitat areas. Developers are responsible for acquiring replacement habitat under this proposal and for management of such lands for the life of the project, 2 unless otherwise indicated. Conventional Mitigation Policies and Guidelines Permanent Habitat Impacts A. No mitigation required for cropland, developed or disturbed areas B. All other areas require the acquisition of replacement habitat that is: Like-kind (e.g., shrub-steppe for shrub-steppe; grassland for grassland) and/or of equal or higher habitat value than the impacted areas (alternative ratio may be negotiated) Given legal protection Protected from degradation for the life of the project In the same geographical region as the impacted habitat Jointly agreed upon by the wind developer and WDFW Ratios: Replacement Habitat Subject to Imminent Development 1:1 1 Examples include collector cable routes, transmission line routes, or access roads. 2 Life of project is defined as beginning at the end of the first year of commercial operation and ending with implementation of the project decommissioning plan. 6

10 Grassland, CRP Replacement Habitat 1:1 Shrub-Steppe, or Other High-Value Replacement Habitat 3 2:1 Temporary Habitat Impacts (anticipated to end when construction is complete and land has been restored) A. No mitigation required for cropland, developed, or disturbed areas B. Mitigation options for other land types include: Implementing a WDFW-approved restoration plan for the impacted area, including site preparation, reseeding with appropriate vegetation, noxious weed control, and protection from degradation. Acquiring suitable replacement habitat for every acre temporarily impacted by the project (see ratios below). A good faith effort to restore the impacted area. However, long-term performance targets should not be imposed since temporal losses and the possibility of restoration failure are incorporated into the acquisition and improvement of replacement habitat. WDFW and a wind developer may agree on other customized or alternative ratios and terms where doing so is mutually beneficial, and accepted methodologies are used, such as a natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) or an alternative mitigation option. Ratios: Acquisition of Grassland, CRP Replacement Habitat 0.1:1 Acquisition of Shrub-Steppe Habitat 0.5:1 Alternative Mitigation Policies and Guidelines The goal of the Wind Power Alternative Mitigation Pilot Program is to provide an optional and streamlined approach to mitigation that results in better habitat value and is more attractive to wind developers than conventional on-site mitigation. Alternative: Applicant will pay an annual fee 4 for the life of the project, 5 which is based on an alternative mitigation fee rate of $55/acre/year for each acre of replacement habitat that would be owed using the ratios and analysis discussed in the section titled Conventional Mitigation Policies and Guidelines. General Provisions: The fee is based on habitat in average condition and can be increased or decreased by 25% to account for differences in habitat quality. The applicant is required to implement an approved restoration plan for temporarily impacted areas. In cases in which the project impacts a mixture of habitat types, the fee schedule will be applied accordingly (to the nearest acre). The annual fee will be used primarily to support stewardship of high-value habitat in the same ecological region as the project. If the applicant and the WDFW cannot agree on a mutually advantageous package under the alternative mitigation program, conventional mitigation guidance will be applied to the project. 3 Habitat considered to be in excellent condition will require developers to engage in additional consultation with WDFW regarding suitable mitigation requirements. 4 The fee will be reviewed annually and adjusted as necessary by WDFW. 7

11 State Policies and Guidelines California Energy Commission & California Department of Fish and Game: DRAFT Guidelines for Reducing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Energy Development Date Established: Draft released December 2006; Final expected June Location: State of California Contact: Rick York, California Energy Commission, , See 6 : Every wind energy project site is unique, and no one recommendation will apply to all prepermitting site selection and layout planning. The following elements, however, should be considered in site selection, in turbine layout, and in developing infrastructure for the facility. Design-Stage Mitigation Good macro-siting decisions are essential for choosing an acceptable site or portion of a site. Once a site is selected, micro-siting efforts can avoid or reduce potential impacts to birds, bats and other biological resources. Minimize fragmentation and habitat disturbance. Establish buffer zones around areas of high bird or bat use in which no disturbance is allowed in order to minimize the risk of collisions. Avoid guy wires. Reduce impacts with appropriate turbine layout based on micro-siting decisions. Place power lines underground, unless burial would result in greater impacts to biological resources. Ensure that all above-ground lines, transformers, or conductors comply with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards, including the use of deterrents. Operation-Stage Mitigation Decommission nonoperational turbines so they no longer present a collision hazard to birds and bats. Developers should submit a decommissioning and reclamation plan that describes the expected actions when some or all of the turbines at a wind site are nonoperational as part of the permitting application. Decommissioning typically involves removal of turbine foundations to 1 meter below ground level and removing access roads and unnecessary fencing and ancillary structures. Avoid lighting that attracts birds. Until more is known, lights with short flash durations that emit no light during the off phase should be used those that have the minimum number of flashes per minute and the briefest flash duration allowable. Use lights on auxiliary buildings near turbines and meteorological (met) towers that are motionsensitive rather than steady burning; they should be downcast. Limited and periodic feathering during low-wind nights may help avoid impacts to bats. 6 Since the drafting of this document, the California Energy Commission released a second draft staff report on April 2007, it can be viewed at at 8

12 Note that high fatality levels may require removal of problem turbines or seasonal shutdowns of turbines. Apply adaptive management and effectiveness monitoring processes to better achieve management objectives. Modify habitat to make the site less attractive to at-risk species. Off-Site Activities Provide for long-term conservation of the target species and its habitat. Ensure that the site is large enough to be ecologically self-sustaining and/or part of a larger conservation strategy. Before the property is sold or credits are sold at a mitigation bank, have a resource management plan approved by all appropriate agencies or nongovernment organizations involved in property management. Protect the site permanently through a fee title and/or a conservation easement. Provide for long-term management of the property after the project is completed or after all mitigation credits have been awarded for the mitigation bank. Ensure the implementation of the resource management plan in the event of nonperformance by the owner of the property or nonperformance by the mitigation bank owner and/or owner. Provide a sufficient level of funding with acceptable guarantees to fully ensure the operation and maintenance of the property, as may be required. Provide for monitoring and reporting on the identified species/habitat management objectives, with an adaptive management/effectiveness monitoring loop to modify management objectives as needed. The Kansas Renewable Energy Working Group: Siting Guidelines for Windpower Projects in Kansas Date Established: January 22, 2003 Location: Contact: See: State of Kansas Jim Plogger, Kansas Corporation Commission, j.ploger@kcc.state.ks.us The Environmental and Siting Committee of the Kansas Renewable Energy Working Group (KREWG) has drafted these guidelines for wind power project stakeholders to use as they consider potential project sites in the State of Kansas. Wind energy siting and permitting requirements vary from county to county, depending largely on whether or not a county is zoned. Currently, statewide regulations for siting wind projects do not exist. Design-Stage Mitigation Use biological and environmental experts to conduct preliminary reconnaissance of the prospective site area. If a site has a large potential for biological and/or environmental conflicts, it may not be worth the time and cost of conducting detailed wind resource evaluation work. Involve local environmental/natural resource groups as soon as practical. Use landscape-level examinations of key wildlife habitats, migration corridors, staging/concentration areas, and breeding and brood-rearing areas to develop general siting strategies. Situate turbines in a way that does not interfere with important wildlife movement corridors and staging areas. 9

13 Do not allow any perches on the nacelles of turbines. Towers should not utilize lattice-type construction or other designs that provide perches. In regions where grassland burning is practiced, make sure that the infrastructure is able to withstand periodic burning of vegetation. Consider potential cumulative regional impacts from multiple wind energy projects when making environmental assessments and mitigation decisions. Take care to avoid damage to unfragmented landscapes and high-quality remnants in the Sandsage, Mixed Grass, and Shortgrass prairies in central and western Kansas. Allowing for an undeveloped buffer adjacent to intact prairies is desirable. When feasible, locate wind energy development on already altered landscapes. Construction-Stage Mitigation Bury power lines, when feasible. Minimize roads and fences, and take care to avoid sensitive habitats. Ideally, implement construction and maintenance when the ground is frozen or when soils are dry and native vegetation is dormant. Operational-Stage Mitigation Address potential adverse affects of turbine warning lights on migrating birds. If significant ecological damage results from siting, consider mitigation for habitat loss, including ecological restoration, long-term management agreements, and conservation easements to enhance or protect sites with an ecological quality that is similar to or higher than that of the developed site. Use native vegetation of local ecotypes to reseed disturbed areas. Consider wildlife and plant composition in determining the frequency and timing of mowing near turbines. Wind Energy Technical Advisory Group: DRAFT Siting Guidelines to Mitigate Avian and Bat Risks from Windpower Projects Date Established: July 6, 2006 Location: Contact: State of Maryland Michael Dean, ; Applicants should consult with the Department of Natural Resources Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) well in advance of filing an application with the Public Service Commission; failure to do so may result in project delays. Applicants are required to consult with Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program (NHP) biologists to ensure that construction is scheduled to avoid or minimize disruptions to bird and bat breeding seasons, as well as to determine the boundaries of allowed physical disturbance during construction. Applicants are then required to submit a request for environmental review from the state s Wildlife and Heritage Service, which includes the project site and boundaries, results from 1 year of monitoring on the proposed site for impacts to bats and birds, an assessment of potential bat habitat on the site, the results of a Phase 1 avian risk assessment, and breeding bird survey results. The PPRP will establish a peer review group composed of relevant experts to assess monitoring plans and data, and the applicant undertakes a post-construction study of mortality rates for at least 3 years. Any mitigation plans should be graded in their implementation so as to reasonably reflect the level of the observed impact and the probability of successful mitigation. Design-Stage Mitigation Use tubular towers, as opposed to lattice towers. 10

14 Construct no permanent towers, including met towers, that are supported by guy wires. Avoid locations that have been identified to have potentially high risk to birds or bats, have unique habitat features, or are occupied by species of particular concern (as determined by the applicant or the state). Construction-Stage Mitigation Bury on-site electrical collector cables when possible. Avoid or minimize disruptions during bird and bat breeding seasons. Reestablish any disturbed nesting/maternity areas, as feasible. Operational-Stage Mitigation Minimize lighting of turbines by lighting the fewest possible number of turbines, synchronizing the flashing cycles of all strobes, installing red strobes (as opposed to white strobes) with the longest possible cycle, and not installing high-intensity lamps for area lighting (e.g., sodium vapor lamps). In the event that a larger-than-expected number of fatalities occurs, contact the NHP as soon as possible, at least within 24 hours. If the impacts to bird or bat populations are considered adverse, the state will seek corrective actions from the applicant to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impact. Mitigation plans may involve either on-site or off-site activities, or both. Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs: DRAFT Guidance on the Siting of Wind Turbines Date Established: In progress; expected to be released by end of 2006 Location: State of Massachusetts Contact: Josh Bagnato, MA Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, ; Josh.Bagnato@state.ma.us State of Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth: Michigan Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems Date Established: December 14, 2005 Location: Rural areas; not meant for On-Site Use or Utility Grid Contact: John Sarver, Energy Office, See: (1) The applicant shall have a third-party, qualified professional conduct an analysis to identify and assess any potential impacts on the natural environment or wildlife and endangered species. (2) The applicant shall take appropriate measures to minimize, eliminate, or mitigate adverse impacts identified in the analysis. (3) The applicant shall identify and evaluate the significance of any net effects or concerns that will remain after mitigation efforts. 11

15 (4) Sites requiring special scrutiny include wildlife refuges, other areas where birds are highly concentrated, bat hibernacula, wooded ridge tops that attract wildlife, sites that are frequented by federally and/or state-listed endangered species of birds and bats, significant bird migration pathways, and areas that have landscape features known to attract large numbers of raptors. (5) The analysis shall include a thorough review of existing information regarding species and habitats, as well as the potential effects on species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act and Michigan s Endangered Species Protection Law. (6) The analysis shall indicate whether a post-construction wildlife mortality study will be conducted and, if not, the reasons why such a study does not need to be conducted. (7) Power lines should be placed underground, when feasible, to prevent avian collisions and electrocutions. All above-ground lines, transformers, or conductors should comply with APLIC published standards. (8) The applicant shall be responsible for making repairs to any public roads damaged by the construction of the utility grid wind energy system. Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife Date Established: Location: Contact: N/A State of Montana T.O. Smith, ; TOSmith@mt.gov There is no regulatory authority over wind development in Montana; however, Montana Environmental Protection Agency requires developers on public and state lands to obtain input from the Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife (MDFW). MDFW has established an internal draft strategy for working with wind development on private lands to minimize environmental impacts to the extent possible. While the draft strategy has not yet been released to the public, the main points pertain to the following: 1. Coordination with county commissioners 2. Location of transmission lines 3. Staff education 4. Research 5. Coordination with the wind industry 6. Working with environmental assessments and environmental impact statements In addition, the MDFW advocates locating turbines near transmission lines and in areas that are not visible from critical recreation areas, as close as possible to where the power will be used, and in areas that are not composed of native shortgrass prairie. The MDFW also advocates minimizing road traffic to and from sites, minimizing the loss of topsoil, replanting disturbed areas with native seeds, conducting preassessment surveys for impacts to bats and birds, and avoiding major migratory routes (waterbird, waterfowl, and raptor). 12

16 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets: Guidelines for Agriculture Mitigation for Windpower Projects Date Established: March 25, 2003 Location: Construction areas in county-adopted, state-certified agricultural districts. See: Operational-Stage Mitigation The following actions are to occur following construction until October 1. For areas to be restored after that date, provision should be made to restore any eroded areas in the springtime. All disturbed agricultural areas will be decompacted to a depth of 18 inches with a deep ripper or heavy-duty chisel plow. 7 All rocks 4 inches and larger will be removed before and after the replacement of topsoil. Topsoil will be replaced to original depth and original contours will be reestablished where possible. Access roads will be regraded, and original surface drainage patterns will be restored. Restored agricultural areas will be seeded with the seed mix specified by the landowner. All construction debris will be removed from the site. Monitoring and Remediation The Project Sponsor will provide a monitoring and remediation period of no less than two years immediately following the completion of initial restoration. General conditions to be monitored include topsoil thickness, relative content of rock and large stones, trench settling, crop production, and drainage and repair of severed fences. Topsoil deficiency and trench settling shall be mitigated with imported topsoil that is consistent with the quality of the topsoil on the affected site. Excess rocks and large stones will be removed and disposed of by the project sponsor. Appropriate rehabilitation measures will be determined and implemented when subsequent crop productivity within the affected area is less than that of the adjacent unaffected agricultural land. Where representative subsoil density of the affected area exceeds the representative subsoil density of the unaffected area, shattering of the soil profile will be performed. Deep shattering will be applied during periods of relatively low soil moisture, and any oversized stone or rock material will be removed that was uplifted to the surface. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy For Siting Non-Nuclear Energy Facilities ( ) Date Established: September 1, 2000 Location: State of Oregon Contact: See: 7 In areas where the topsoil was stripped, soil decompaction shall be conducted prior to topsoil replacement. 13

17 The fish and wildlife habitat mitigation policy of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife requires or recommends mitigation for losses of fish and wildlife habitat resulting from development actions. Whether it is a requirement or a recommendation depends on the habitat protection and mitigation opportunities provided by specific statutes. Priority for mitigation actions is given to habitat for native fish and wildlife species. Mitigation actions for nonnative fish and wildlife species may not adversely affect habitat for native fish and wildlife. Departmental recommendations or requirements for mitigation are based on the following: o The location, physical and operational characteristics, and duration of the proposed development action. o The alternatives to the proposed development action. o The fish and wildlife species and habitats that will be affected by the proposed development action. o The nature, extent, and duration of impacts expected to result from the proposed development action. The Department may recommend or require the posting of a bond, or other financial instrument acceptable to the Department, to cover the cost of mitigation actions based on the nature, extent, and duration of the impact and/or the risk of the mitigation plan not achieving mitigation goals. o The Department may only use mitigation banks and payment to provide mitigation for habitat categories 2-6 (see below). o The amount of payment to provide mitigation will include, at a minimum, the cost of property acquisition, mitigation actions, maintenance, monitoring, and any other actions needed for the long-term protection and management of the mitigation site. The Department requires the submission of a mitigation plan, which includes: o Protocols and methods, and a reporting schedule for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Performance measures include success criteria and long-term protection and management provisions The project proponent is responsible for the expenses of developing, evaluating, and implementing the mitigation plan and monitoring the mitigation site. To issue a site certificate, the Council must find that the design, construction, operation and retirement of the facility, taking into account mitigation, are consistent with the fish and wildlife habitat mitigation goals and standards. All Habitat Category mitigation strategies must first seek to avoid impacts through alternatives to the proposed development action. If that does not work, then the following mitigation strategies will be pursued: Habitat Category 1: Habitat Category 2: Irreplaceable, essential habitat for a fish or wildlife species, population, or a unique assemblage of species and is limited on either a physiographic province or site-specific basis, depending on the individual species, population or unique assemblage. MITIGATION = no loss of either habitat quantity or quality, requiring: No authorization of the proposed development action if impacts cannot be avoided. Essential habitat for a fish or wildlife species, population, or a unique assemblage of species and is limited on either a physiographic province or site-specific basis, depending on the individual species, population, or unique assemblage. MITIGATION = no net loss of either habitat quantity or quality, and the provision of a net benefit of habitat quantity or quality, requiring: In-kind, in-proximity habitat mitigation to achieve no net loss of either predevelopment habitat quantity or quality. In addition, a net benefit of habitat quantity or quality must be provided. 14

18 Habitat Category 3: Habitat Category 4: Habitat Category 5: Habitat Category 6: If neither of the above can be achieved, the Department shall recommend against or shall not authorize the proposed development action. Essential habitat for fish and wildlife, or important habitat for fish and wildlife that is limited either on a physiographic province or site-specific basis, depending on the individual species or population. Important habitat for fish and wildlife species. MITIGATION = no net loss of either habitat quantity or quality. In-kind, in-proximity habitat mitigation to achieve no net loss of either predevelopment habitat quantity or quality. Habitat Category 4 also includes out-of-kind and off-proximity habitats. If neither of the above can be achieved, the Department shall recommend against or shall not authorize the proposed development action. Habitat for fish and wildlife having high potential to become either essential or important. MITIGATION = provide a net benefit in habitat quality or quantity. Actions that contribute to essential or important habitat. If neither of the above can be achieved, the Department shall recommend against or shall not authorize the proposed development action. Habitat has low potential to become essential or important for fish and wildlife. MITIGATION = to minimize impacts. The Department shall recommend or require actions that minimize direct habitat loss and avoid impacts to off-site habitat. South Dakota Bat Working Group & South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks: Siting Guidelines for Wind Power Projects in South Dakota Date Established: Location: Entire state Contact: Alyssa Kiesow, See: The guidelines outlined in this document are neither mandates nor regulations. They have been compiled and developed to encourage developers to select potential wind sites using a process that is acceptable to all stakeholders, to protect South Dakota s rare and unique areas, to minimize deleterious effects to wildlife, to help provide information to all involved and interested parties, and to promote a responsible, guided, uniform approach to the siting of wind power projects in South Dakota. Design-Stage Mitigation Use biological and environmental experts to conduct a preliminary biological reconnaissance of the likely site area. Involve wildlife agency personnel, universities, and local environmental and natural resource groups and agencies; their involvement will provide resource information as well as minimize potential conflicts. Situate turbines so they do not interfere with important wildlife movement corridors and staging areas. Avoid large, intact areas of native vegetation. 15

19 Avoid lattice-designed towers or other designs providing perches for avian predators. Develop a stringent plan for preventing the introduction or establishment of nonnative or invasive flora. Consider turbine designs. Construction-Stage Mitigation Bury power lines and/or place turbines near existing transmission lines and substations. Minimize the number of roads and fences. Consider the timing of construction and maintenance activities (including mowing). Avoid construction and maintenance activities during breeding season (April to July) and, if possible, during migrations (April to June and August to October). Operational-Stage Mitigation Mitigate for habitat loss through ecological restoration, long-term management agreements, conservation easements, or fee title acquisitions. Address potential adverse affects of turbine warning lights on migrating birds and bats. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department: DRAFT Guidelines for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Impacts to Wildlife Associated with Wind Energy Development in Vermont Date Established: April 20, 2006 Location: Entire state Contact: Julie Moore, See: 1/documents/other_guidelines/VERMONT_GUIDELINES_ PDF In general, habitat disturbance should be minimized, as well as the risk of collision mortality for both resident and migratory bird and bat species. In addition, permittees should be required to establish an escrow fund to support the necessary post-construction monitoring. Design-Stage Mitigation The applicant should establish the presence or absence of different wildlife species and significant habitats, well in advance of any construction activities, so that appropriate mitigation and avoidance practices can be used. Studies need to be completed during breeding and migratory seasons. The Department will review all survey results to determine if the project will result in undue adverse impacts, 8 and may seek revisions to the project. Construction-Stage Mitigation Construction activities should be scheduled to avoid important periods of wildlife courtship, breeding, and nesting. o Any clearing of montane spruce-fir must take place outside the breeding period for Bicknell s Thrush. 8 Fatality rate exceeds the national average (2.3 birds/turbine/year and 3.4 bats/turbine/year) or some of the species affected are considered threatened or endangered by the state or federal government. 16

20 o Construction activities within ¼ mile of significant black bear hard mast habitat or spring feeding areas should take place outside the feeding periods September 1 November 21 and May 1 July 15. Noise-reduction devices should be maintained in good working order on vehicles and construction equipment. Operation-Stage Mitigation Habitat restoration activities should be initiated as soon as possible after construction is complete. A minimum of three years of rigorous post-construction bird and bat mortality surveys are necessary for any utility-scale wind project in Vermont. o Monitoring is to be conducted from April 15 to October 31. If a project is considered to have undue adverse impacts, mitigation measures will be required that may include the following: o Modified Operations additional monitoring or research, technological improvements, adjustment of operations during periods of highest risk, or suspension of operation during periods of highest risk. o Modified Lighting alternative aircraft warning lighting, reduction in number of lit turbines, altering the arrangement of lights, using LED fixtures, or providing baffling around the lights. o On-site Habitat Management modifying the type or extent of vegetation cover, forest openings, perching and nesting sites, or cover for prey species. o Habitat Protection compensatory mitigation measures such as protection or enhancement of wildlife habitat. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Wind Farm Siting Guidance Date Established: August 31, 2005 Contact: Steve Ugoretz, See: A baseline wildlife evaluation should be conducted for each site under serious consideration for wind farm development. To allow comparison with other studies, this evaluation should follow accepted standard protocols for wind farm evaluations (such as the NWCC study guidelines). If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines are used, they should also incorporate Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) considerations. Design-Stage Mitigation Bird and bat use and interactions with wind turbines and supporting facilities should be monitored for an adequate period (at least two years is recommended) after installation, using accepted standard methods. This should be done for the first wind farms in any ecological region of the state. o If no problems are determined by the DNR s evaluation of the results, it is likely that later installations with similar characteristics will not require as much detailed study as the initial wind farms. Mitigation measures proven to minimize collisions and mortality should be designed into the wind farm. An adaptive management approach to planning, design, construction, and operations is highly recommended. 17

21 Construction-Stage Mitigation Placing electric lines underground is highly recommended. The use of perch guards on above-ground poles and other APLIC-endorsed technologies is recommended. Federal Policies and Guidelines Bureau of Land Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States Date Established: June 2005 Location: See: All wind energy development projects on BLM-administered lands The BLM proposes the following best management practices (BMPs) be applied to all wind energy development projects: Design-Stage Mitigation The area disturbed by installation of met towers shall be kept to a minimum. Individual towers shall not be located in sensitive habitats or in areas where ecological resources known to be sensitive to human activities are present. Installation of towers shall be scheduled to avoid disruption of wildlife reproductive activities or other important behaviors. Existing roads shall be used to the maximum extent feasible. Avian and bat use of the project area should be evaluated using rigorous survey methods. Turbines shall be configured to avoid landscape features known to attract raptors. Disturbance to any population of federally listed plant species is prohibited. A habitat restoration plan shall be developed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate negative impacts on vulnerable wildlife while maintaining or enhancing habitat values for other species, including revegetation, soil stabilization, and erosion-reduction measures. Procedures shall be developed to mitigate potential impacts to special status species. Locations heavily utilized by migratory birds and bats should be avoided, especially migration corridors or known flight paths, raptor nest sites, and areas used by bats as colonial hibernation, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies, if studies show that they would pose a high risk to species of concern. Facilities shall be designed to discourage their use as perching or nesting substrates for birds. Operators shall develop a plan to control noxious weeds and invasive species. Habitat disturbance should be minimized by locating facilities in previously disturbed areas. Projects should not be located in areas with a high incidence of fog and mist. The use of sodium vapor lights should be minimized or avoided. Construction-Stage Mitigation The area disturbed by construction and operation will be kept to a minimum. Topsoil from all excavations and construction activities shall be salvaged and reapplied during reclamation, along with weed-free native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Guy wires on permanent towers shall be avoided. Habitat restoration will begin as soon as possible after the completion of construction. 18

22 Access roads should be located to follow natural contours of the topography and minimize side hill cuts, and they should minimize stream crossings. The creation of, or increase in, the amount of edge habitat between natural habitats and disturbed lands should be minimized. Stream crossing should be designed to provide in-stream conditions that allow for and maintain the uninterrupted movement and safe passage of fish. Construction activities should be scheduled to avoid important periods of wildlife courtship, breeding, nesting, lambing, or calving. Buffer zones should be established around raptor nests, bat roosts, and biota and habitats of concern, if facilities are believed to pose a significant risk to avian or bat species of concern. Noise-reduction devices should be maintained in good working order on vehicles and construction equipment. Explosives should be used only within specified times and at specified distances from sensitive wildlife or surface waters. Dust abatement techniques should be used on unpaved, unvegetated surfaces. Construction materials and stockpiled soil should be covered if they are a source of fugitive dust. Refueling should occur in a designated fueling area that includes a temporary berm to limit the spread of any spill. Drip pans should be used. Construction equipment should be visually inspected to identify and remove seeds that may be adhering to tires and other surfaces. Fill materials that originate from areas with known invasive vegetation problems should not be used. Certified weed-free mulch should be used when stabilizing areas of disturbed soil. Pesticide use should be limited to nonpersistent, immobile pesticides. Operation-Stage Mitigation Measures to reduce raptors use of the project site shall be considered, including minimization of road cuts and maintenance of either no vegetation or nonattractive plant species around the turbines. All unnecessary lighting should be turned off at night to limit attracting migratory birds. Higher-height vegetation should be encouraged along transmission corridors to minimize foraging in these areas by raptors, to the extent that local conditions will support this vegetation. Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular: Obstruction Marking and Lighting, Chapter 13 Date Established: February 1, 2007 Location: Contact: Any terrestrial location within the United States Scott Larwood, ; smlarwood@ucdavis.edu Wind turbine farms are defined as a wind turbine development that contains more than three turbines that measure more than 200 feet high above ground level. The recommended marking and lighting of wind turbines is intended to provide day and night conspicuity and to assist pilots in identifying and avoiding these structures. There was no mention of the effects of these guidelines on wildlife, and no sign of plans to research this topic in the future. Operational-Stage Lighting Requirements Maximum separation gap between lights along a row <0.5 miles. 19